September 6, 2008

Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Palin have little in common beyond their breakout performances at the conventions and the soap opera aspects of their family lives. Mrs. Clinton always faces high expectations; Ms. Palin faced low expectations this week, and benefited from them. Mrs. Clinton can seem harsh when she goes on the attack; Ms. Palin has shown a knack for attacking without seeming nasty. Mrs. Clinton has a lot of experience; Ms. Palin, not so much. Mrs. Clinton is pantsuits; Ms. Palin is skirts.

Some Republican delegates in St. Paul saw starker differences.

“Sarah’s smile is sincere, which I never felt from Hillary, who has anger and resentment in her eyes,” said Ann Schmuecker, a delegate from Mountain Home, Arkansas, where she met the Clintons decades ago.

But Palin may appeal to the "white working women with children living in the exurbs and in rural parts of battleground states" who stuck by Hillary in the primaries. Obama may look to Hillary to try to deliver those voters to him, but then the question is: Does she want to?

Some of her aides note with a hint of resentment that Mr. Obama did not pick her as his running mate; he did not even vet her fully.

Fully? I thought he didn't vet her at all!

Plus, they add, her fall calendar also includes campaigning for Senate Democratic candidates, not just for Mr. Obama.

The use of “Mrs.” is appropriate whenever a woman prefers it. It isn’t our choice, yours or mine; it is hers. Our style rule calls for us to use "Ms." in subsequent references to a woman unless she prefers "Miss" or "Mrs." and reporters are told that they should ask for the woman’s preference. That holds for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as other women (in her case, of course, "Senator" is also an option in subsequent references).

THE sign outside Nancy Pelosi's office bears the mark of her feminist roots: it identifies her as "Ms. Pelosi," using the honorific created half a century ago to give women an alternative to disclosing their marital status.

But mostly Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, goes by just that — Mrs. Pelosi.

Across the Capitol, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, is referred to as Mrs. Clinton at every roll call. Yet the women in the Senate are split: seven use Mrs., but the other six go by Ms., including three who are married: Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine; Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana; and Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.

Now, you can analyze the personality or the political strategy of various women as they decide whether to overcome the default and ask to be called "Mrs." (or "Miss"), but put aside your theories about New York Times bias.

The woman who's being dispatched is the woman who was thrown over for someone else, by her own party.

The unflattering comparisons..... and Hillary doesn't represent the anti-politician that makes Palin so attractive. These women being launched like cannons are all heavily entrenched career politicians......

.....who were all passed over for the main slots on the Democratic ticket !!!!!

Hilary's best and probably only chance to become president is a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2012. If Obama wins in 2008, it would be safe to say that with a sycophantic media's help, he would do two terms. That put's Hillary's next chance out in 2016 by which time the electorate will have tired of a Democrat regime and will elect a Republican. So Hillary gets pushed out again to 2020 by which time she is old toast with no chance of winning. If Obama loses it also gives the fawning media four years to beat up on Palin in preparation for Hillary/Obama 2012.

Let's face it: in the Democratic primaries they had a choice between a Marxist (Obama), an effete pretty boy (Edwards), and Hillary Clinton. So of course she got a lot of votes: the other two were never going to be serious options, so she got them by default - not because they were in love with her candidacy. Because they were never die-hard supporters, there is no "loyalty factor" to which an appeal can be made.

Now the choice is between John McCain and the Marxist. Those blue collar Democrats are unlikely to be swayed to vote for the Marxist they already rejected once even if Hillary says "pretty please."

2) Let's also not forget that Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" was going on during the primaries where most of those blue-collar Democrats live. Hillary got a lot of votes that were never going to go for her in the general election: they were spoiler votes and nothing else. As such, she's not going to be able to get them for Obama either.

3) Even if she goes on the campaign trail, I'd be very surprised if she attacked Palin rather than McCain. Hardcore feminists might be supportive, but she would surely forfeit future votes from women in the squishy middle if she were seen to be collaborating with a campaign she has repeatedly called out for sexism in order to take down another female candidate. She's far too calculating a politician not to have already figured that for herself.

4) She clearly doesn't like or support the candidacy of Obama. She has complained repeatedly about his underhanded tactics in securing the nomination, and now when he finds himself in trouble she's supposed to come rescue him? I can just imagine the peals of laughter in the Clinton household when that phone call came in...

Does anyone else see some desperation in Obama reaching out to Hilary now? I mean, she stayed in the campaign long after it was clear she would lose, so he must blame her for giving McCain a free ride during the last half of the primary season.

And as Ann pointed out, he doesn't really have any reason to trust her. She comes out waaaaaay ahead if he loses the election, as long as she doesn't get blamed for it. Normally the candidate could offer a cabinet position as a reward, but Hilary's already a senator... she doesn't benefit from taking a job that can get her blamed for things that go wrong.

And as for a Clinton/Obama run in 2012... why would she choose Obama? By 2012 he's not a fresh new face; his rhetoric is getting old. Did anyone think Obama would choose Kerry as his running mate? Or Edwards?

Victoria. Palin and Jindal are alike but not as much as one may think.

They are both fresh faces, minds and souls as yet untarnished by Washington.

They are both intelligent, but in different and key ways: Palin the self-made woman, wise in the ways of nature and the outdoors, with a gift for communicating. Jindal with genius level book-smarts and a history of applying his intellect. That is a good match.

I think what you described is the way VP's *used* to be chosen. But if the two are alike in the right ways - the ways that are attracting people to Palin now - Jindal could run for the top of the ticket twice after Palin's two terms.

Remember how the national MSM had a hissyfit when Bush toured more sympathetic local media outlets? How dare he bypass our filter! How dare you prevent us from framing? Well, that's what is happening here, at least for awhile (2 weeks is my understanding). Jonathan Alter even predicted it. Sully is having fits (duh), but interestingly Chris Matthews seems more sympathetic.

In fact I do. You think the rules change because the numbers are large? The value of all debt depends on the willingness of the the borrower to repay. The debt the Chinese hold is dollar denominated, and we control the value of the dollar.

Do you realize the slide in the dollar has caused far more pain in China than in the US? We could break the Chinese just by printing a bunch of money. That wouldn't be a good idea for other reasons, but don't think for a minute the Mandarins in Beijing are in the driver's seat.

Hilary needs to be seem helping Obama, as doing the best of all who are campaigner for Obama. Without that she has no future in politics as a democrat. And she needs to retire her campaign debt. If Obama crashes and burns, its not her fault. If McCain has a fairly successful term, she will adjust her ambitions and be a major player in the Senate.

Todd Harris is a hired gun who's worked for McCain in the past, but isn't working for McCain (or any other Republican, as far as I can tell) now.

Do you always quote former employees as an official source, or just Republicans? What you're saying about Palin may, in fact, be true. Or maybe not. Todd Harris's opinion sheds no light on the subject.

I have absolutely zero difficulty with Sarah's need to "cram" at this point. I mean, remember what Barack Obama said way back when: in order to run for President he'd have to start basically as soon as he took office as Senator. And he did, which is why he's done so little in office. I for one am glad that Sarah Palin has spent her time as Governor actually governing, focusing on her state.

I wasn't advocating inflation as a policy. I'm just trying to point out the Chinese are dancing at the end of our string, not the other way around. If the US economy gets a cough, the Chinese economy has Ebola. How is that not good for us?

McCain has already run a couple of quick ads using Hillary's quotes from the primaries against Obama - specifically ones in which she states that McCain is more qualified for the presidency than Obama.

Given that McCain's campaign has thus far seemed to be fairly adept at responding to the news cycle (unlike many previous Republican campaigns), isn't it likely that they would cut a few more (or even recycle the ones they already have) and run them everywhere the Obama campaign sends Hillary to campaign on his behalf?

That would seem to be the obvious strategy for McCain...Again, she's anything but stupid, so I can't believe that she wouldn't see that sort of thing coming...

Why would she possibly set herself up to look so stupid as to be caught saying one thing on the stump at the exact same time that local TV viewers will see what she really thinks about Obama? Would she really risk damaging her own credibility in future campaigns for what, in all likelihood, would be a losing cause?

Does anyone here really think she's ready to fall on her own sword for Obama's sake?

If the US economy gets a cough, the Chinese economy has Ebola. How is that not good for us?

The US economy has more than a cough and a long way to go before current situation bottoms out. It hardly matters to me how badly my neighbor is affected by my house burning to the ground and everything I own and love going up in flames.

"Well, for Sarah Palin to ever win the experience comparison with Hillary, Todd is going to have to go cheat on her."

He'd better get busy then because he'll need to cheat on her at least half a dozen times, right?

"Even if she goes on the campaign trail, I'd be very surprised if she attacked Palin rather than McCain."

She won't even attack McCain who she is friends with.

The attacks will be on Bush, and the same Independent voters who elected Bush twice will elect McCain partly because, by Nov. 4, they will view those attacks as being unfair and in bad faith and therefore unAmerican - three things moderate Independents can't stand whenever they are perceived in either of the two major parties.

People - remember the most important truth about Hillary. She's not farked because of Obama/McCain/Palin, but because of her own glaring deficiencies of character. It's not anyone Else's fault but hers.

Alex, ideal situation it's not. Neither is it financial meltdown. We'll probably have a very mild recession at some point, but every time this happens you find people predicting "a depression that makes 1929 look like good times."

TL, how do you reconcile that with the fact the economy is still growing?

Well, that's debatable for a start.

But regardless; the current situation with failing banks, the mortgage crisis, (just how may bailouts can the government afford?) the auto industry tanking, oil costs....the only ones doing well are the oil companies.

The irony of the govt bailing out Fannie and Freddie is they are saving Japanese and Chinese investors at the expense of taxpayers.

She has complained repeatedly about his underhanded tactics in securing the nomination, and now when he finds himself in trouble she's supposed to come rescue him?

His underhanded tactics? If I remember correctly she was the underhanded one and he won fair and square. She violated the Florida and Michigan rules then wanted the rules changed to benefit her and her alone. She hired mark Penn, an evil, vicious, and abhorrent man; he is her brain. She was his puppet. The liberals have a lot of nerved talking against Karl Rove. Penn is a heinous criminal compared to Rove. Underhanded tactics indeed.

It seems unlikely that Hillary could swing many votes to Obama as as a "surrogate" [sp?] even if she wanted to (which I strongly doubt). I can't think of another person not on the ticket (or even VP on the ticket) who moved many votes in a past election.

In this case, there is a general, probably accurate, perception that Clinton and Obama can't stand each other, so with all the other baggage, how could Hillary possibly be viewed as sincere and effective in campaigning for him?

The funny part is that, if Obama loses, it appears very likely that his failure to pick Hillary as VP will be viewed as the reason.

Wouldn't that make Hillary happy? Wouldn't it be great to know what Hillary really is thinking at thi point?

"The funny part is that, if Obama loses, it appears very likely that his failure to pick Hillary as VP will be viewed as the reason.

Wouldn't that make Hillary happy? Wouldn't it be great to know what Hillary really is thinking at thi point?"

Kansas City is right. Victoria, I should have considered this in my odds above. Change that slight chance to a better than slight chance. If McCain wins and then bombs, *then* Hillary becomes a formidable candidate again.

Given that Hillary's own accomplishments are already suspect as it is. Fair or not, the meme is that she rode on her husband cocktails to make it where she is, as opposed to Palin. (looks was not mention)

And now Obama wants Hillary to add Palins Iron Maiden to her bio?

I think not.

If Hillary accepts however, it will be because she believes her own chances to have slipped away for good ala Mondale, a Gov of Mass, Gore, Kerry.

Even if Palin looses the comparisons btwg her and Palin will be made from now on. It's easy, it's lazy, it's perfect. For an example of that see Howard Gutman.

now it's getting rediculous. Obama is attacking Palin over earmarks when his own VP requested 120,000,000 this year alone and over 1,000,000,000 since 2000.

Obama himself requested 100,000,00o this year and close 500,000,000 since he's been in the Senate. Including millions that went towards projects that favored and helped his wife and Tony Rezko, among other members of the Chicago/Daley machine

He even doled out a few million to help out Biden's son. Funny how that works out. The same son of Biden's who is currently being sued for over 10,000,000 by a Deutsche Bank executive. Interesting how the media doesn't ask Obama if Biden was vetted? Interesting how they don't seem to be interested in Biden's kids. In his parenting, icluding his daughter who got a DUI in 2002, but they'll plaster Todd Palin's DUI from 1986 all over the news. I don't recall them talking all that much about what Obama was doing in 1986. You know, like the crack he's admitting smoking.

The medeia has shown themselves to be a huge embrassment the last two weeks.

Even with that , McCain outdrew Obama on TV. Palin outdrew him on TV. The RNC outdrew the dems on TV.

Clinton wants Obama to lose. If he wins, she's finished.

If he loses, she's the instant frontrunner for 2012 and should win easily. Obama's political career will be over.

Against McCain in 2012, we will have had 12 yrs of the GOP and a 77yr old man. A Clinton winning after 12 yrs of Republicans. Sound familiar?

Even against Palin, she'd have a very good chance simply based on fatigue and the fact that the dems won't be running a far left black guy in a can't lose election.

Obama losing is really the only thing she and Bill have left if they want back in the WH.

Torn ligament: "Not when it's $300 trillion in debt and owned by the Chinese."

It is actually more like $300 billion that the Chinese hold. I know, petty difference, a "T" where there ought to be a "B". But it does make your figure off by 1,000 fold, or 100,000% if you like percentages.

The meme about Sarah Palin's "showy motherhood" has been constant since her appearance in Dayton.

To dispassionate observers (which I am not) her children have three troubling storylines:

- Down Syndrome baby- Son in the Army, going to Iraq- Pregnant unwed daughter

Troubling because they don't know how to attack the first two parts, after unsuccessfully doing so to the third. They are unassailably positive points WRT to her as a human being and therefore, as a candidate.

So they are going after her motivation.

(I think they believe it's clearly not FAIR that she should be parading her kids in the limelight like she has, so she must be doing it for other reasons)

Here is what the diarist says:

I wanted to alert Kossacks to this poignant, but also alarming article that I read over at antiwar.com. The gist of it is a vital one to understand -- that Sarah Palin's role in this campaign fits like a velvet glove over the iron fist of right-wing theocratic populism and that her persona echoes the same television phenomena that the author saw in Iran.

I won't link to the DK article, but here is the original post they quote from an Iranian dissident:

One of the problems the government faced was opposition from legions of mothers whose sons had been maimed or died in the war. To confront this problem, the government-controlled TV would parade a mother whose son had died in the war in front of the TV on a regular basis. Invariably, this "show mom" would be carrying an infant child and a few other siblings with her. And invariably, she would say something to the effect that "I have given one child to this 'sacred' war, and I am ready to give the next one." Almost always, there would be an adoring crowd who would follow her statements by chants of "Allaho-Akbar" (God is Great). And again invariably, her statements would follow by a not-so-veiled threat from her and the adoring crowd. She would say something like "I and my family would not tolerate traitors and betrayals to the faith and country". Then the crowd would break into several standard chants such as "Death to traitors" or "War, war, until victory."

What was the knock on Bush and Cheney? That they had nothing to lose with declaring war, because none of their kids were in danger of being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan?

IMHO, the most "dangerous" political aspect to Sarah Palin is her children. That's why they attacked Bristol first, and now they are going after her son, to be deployed to Iraq in 5 days.

They have to ruin this woman, and soon, before she becomes even more dangerous as a symbol, than she is now.

It is actually more like $300 billion that the Chinese hold. I know, petty difference, a "T" where there ought to be a "B". But it does make your figure off by 1,000 fold, or 100,000% if you like percentages.

The $300.T was referring to just the overall debt. 'Owned by the Chinese', did however refer to the massive debt the Chinese hold on the US...but I can see how it would read as you interpreted it.

"If Hillary accepts however, it will be because she believes her own chances to have slipped away for good ala Mondale, a Gov of Mass, Gore, Kerry."

Gore would have won, both the Dem nomination and the general election, in a walk this year.

He didn't run because he is happy and rich and famous and loved without doing so. Two of those would have changed if he ran (the happy and loved) and another (the rich) would have been adversely impacted (as he can make more now than he could as a candidate).

It was his if he felt it was his calling. But enriching himself on the global warming tit, while getting adulation for saving the world, was a bigger draw.

Torn Ligament: "The $300.T was referring to just the overall debt. 'Owned by the Chinese', did however refer to the massive debt the Chinese hold on the US...but I can see how it would read as you interpreted it."

Total US Government debt is under 10 Trillion, so you are still off by 30 fold.

There was already a rumor that even before the Biden selection Hillary turned down Obama. At that time, there was already a buzz on why Obama was not leading more in the polls. I am sure that Hillary calculated that Obama could lose 08 thus allowing her to run in 12. Had she joined him, and Obama/Clinton wins, she could not run till 16. Undoubtedly she recognizes how difficult it would be for a VP of 8 years to run for PotUS. Thus if Obama/Biden wins she would actually have a better chance of winning in 16 from outside the administration.

This calculus is even more obvious now with Palin.I would say no chance in hell would Hillary join Obama now.

Gore would have won, both the Dem nomination and the general election, in a walk this year.

I respectfully disagree. First, he was a bad loser in 2000. Wanting to win, or really believing that he deserved to win, so badly that he would litigate the presidency up to the Supreme Court, amid an attempt to selectively recount in only heavily Democratic counties, while disenfranchising overseas military, just doesn't look good.

But as importantly, regardless of the merits of Global Warming, his hypocrisies there are rampant, ranging from his energy inefficient mansion through his making money on "carbon offsets" and continuing through his gross exaggerations. Oh, and I forgot his family money coming from raping the environment.

My view is that if he had become the Democratic nominee, the election would have been about these hypocrisies. I suspect he knew this, and realized that it would have significantly set back his efforts in that arena.

How many puff pieces have I seen about Obama shooting hoops with the troops, or shooting hoops on the trail, or talking about a basketball court in the WH, etc...

Palin actually played basketball competitively(something I dont think Obama ever did), and won a state championship. I wonder how many puff pieces we'll see about that. If she'll be on tv shooting hoops with the media.

And Obama is shown playing basketball in pants. What a loser. Certainly no real athlete. No one plays basketball in pants. He was shown riding his bike wearing jeans. Again, what normal guy, or gal for that matter, rides their bike wearing jeans. I never saw anyone do so until I sae that photo of him.

She runs marathons. Remeber all those puff pieces about Bill Clinton and his jogging and how he's just a regular joe.

She hunts, fishes, I think has a pilot's license. If she was a dem she'd be the second coming of Daniel Boone. You wouldnt hear the end of the fawning.

The bias of the media is palpable.

i can honestly say that this election cycle has the most glaring bias in favor of Obama I've ever seen in any election while at the same time havng the most negative bias I've ever seen in any election against Palin. Maybe Bush in 2004 but I think it's worse against Palin.

And I love how these media bosses say "we're just asking questions/ we're just doing our job".

They've asked no questions about Obama, or Biden. None. They knew about Jeremiah Wright for example form the day Obama announced his candidacy and said nothing about it for over a year until they were forced to by FoxNews and Sean Hannity. The list goes on.

I had to laugh at Chris Matthews ripping John McCain for his houses. Of course, Chris doesn't deem it necessary to tell his viewers he makes over 5 million a year, and has 3 Mercedes's in his driveway in Bethesda.

I just wish they'd be honest abuot it. That the heads of NBC news and CNN and all the rest would just come out and say "Yes, we want Barack Obama to win. 99% of our staff is voting for him. We are doing everything we can to help him win"

This pretense that American journalists have about being "neutral" has got to stop. Own up whenever possible.

Remember when Mary Mapes, the producer who was fired after Rathergate, went on O'Reilly and he asked her:

"Are you a Liberal or Conservative?"

"Well my kids would probably call me VERY conservative."

I was listening to that, and saying "WTF. What a cynical reply."

Today, I was listening to NPR which also prides itself in saying they are neutral in their reporting (smirk). They had on Nate Silver, who runs a polling site.

At the end of the piece, they mentioned that he is openly in favour of Obama winning the Presidency. He wants everyone to know that, because (a) you can reverse engineer his finds if you want to double-check them (b) that there should be more transparency in political reportage.

A-FREAKING-MEN.

Tell you what, I'm much more likely to believe this Nate Silver, than I am Andrea Mitchell.

It wasn't what he didn't keep in his pants. It was what he couldn't keep off his intern's blue dress and off the internets.

Ultimately, it was that he couldn't tell the grand jury the truth about his sexual harassment problem. Hillary can't tell herself the truth about her enabling his sexual harassment problem and that's why, even if she were nominated by her seriously dysfunctional and disordered party, the American voters will never trust her to rule them.

I wouldn't be surprised if he offers to be her chief of staff or special advsior to help her get acclimated to Washington.

who is obama appealing to by wearing pants to shoot hoops? or jeans to ride his bike? the dork vote? even his supporters in the hood had to laugh at that.

I've been to thousands of playgrounds and I've never seen anyone wear pants to play basketball. even in winter. outside. and certainly not inside. and his shirt was tucked in during the game? I mean, what a loser.

Palin should come out and challenge Obama to a game of one on one or horse or a free throw-3 point contest. They could sell ads and donate the money to military families. Obama would probably decline the offer.

Today, I was listening to NPR which also prides itself in saying they are neutral in their reporting.

Reminds me of David Mamet

As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. "?" she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as "a brain-dead liberal," and to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio."

Some years back a combat photographer wrote a book on the exploits of photo-journalists during the Viet Nam war. The title escapes me. Now photographers back then were just like the GIs, except they carried cameras instead of guns. In his book he claimed that Dan Rather and Peter Arnett were roundly detested by the photogs and many other journalists. They were pegged as phonies and were experts at getting info from official sources and doctoring it up instead of going out into the field and risking getting dirty, hurt, or killed like the others were. They even laughed at Rather because he showed off a gun he carried; totally illegal for journalists. They laughed because he did not know which end was up. They hated Arnett. They pegged him for a traitor form the get go.

When I first learned Palin was McCain's choice for VP I abruptly bought 160 shares of Kimberly Clark, makers of Depends. That came out to nearly $10,000.00 I expected half the population would be pissing themselves. It's risen steadily, albeit moderately since.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Sometimes investing is quite funny. I can sell any time and enjoy a good laugh.

As a "Mr. Dad" who was the primary child-rearer in our family, I need to tell you that both the concept of husbands "helping out with" child-rearing and the term "Mr. Mom" are insulting and counterproductive to fathers gaining the freedom to share in all the responsibilities of parenting.

Maybe we should start our own movement. We need our rights protected and expanded and we must demand respect. We could call it the Dadist or Fatherist movement. We will demand that Mr. Mom and all the other shameful and demeaning insults are banned from public discussion. We will demand equal pay for equal work. Us dads deserve our own father’s rights bill. We deserve real, effective paid paternity leave any time we need it. It is time for the dads, especially the stay at home dads, of the world to stand up and be counted. We are men and we are strong. It is time to break the spandex ceiling that holds us back from our true potential. Fatherhood is not a choice, it is a privilege. Liberation now!

Lem,I have a piece of advice for you. Change your ID right now before Trooper finds out. I am only telling you this as an act of humanitarianism. While both Trooper and I think the Red Sox suck, I could care less about the fans. He hates the Red Sox, the fans, and the city of Boston. Save yourself.

High end eyeglass outlets are reporting that they are mostly out of Sarah Palin's brand and make of eyeglasses. All report women, some with new Sarah Palin hairdos, are flying into the stores to get the Kawasaki #704 titanium frames Palin uses. And after a few initial days of confusion, the outlets know the exact lens size and tint coating used in Palin's frames. Emergency orders are already placed with Kawasaki, but store outlets predict that the demand indicates they may sell out as well.

In Los Angeles, a spokeswoman at Raphaels on Rodeo Drive said "The Palin is the rage." Some women are buying 1200 dollar hair extensions just so their shorter hair can achieve "The Palin Look". The spokeswoman assured the reporter that there isn't some hidden mass of Republicans swarming in. "Each seems honor-bound to say when they want the full 'Palin' they love Obama and will definitely vote for him. Its a matter of critical fashion attire. Few Republicans patronize our shop. I'm sure the Palin craze will go away soon. It won't last like the Aniston.."

Nah, unions are so passé, antediluvian, and anachronistic. Movements are making a big come back. Just think we could have a multi-million dad march on DC. Movements are just the thing right now; they are cool and hip, especially in this political climate of change. We need to start a group with initials. Initials are the way to go. All the hip groups have the. The FLM sounds good; Father’s Liberation Movement. It gives it that, oh, Che kind of South American touchy feely thingy that appeals to people.

I just read on the internet and wikipikidikisiki has confirmed it. The Secret Service will not allow Biden anywhere near main thorough fares and bus routes. He will only be taken down side streets and alleys. All bus traffic will be halted ten miles from any air port he will be going to.

You guys are pretty funny but here are a few things Todd Palin could face as the primary parent of five children under the age of 18 while his wife continues her political career, possibly all the way to the White House:

If their children are going to be reared with a full-time parent present, he will need to sacrifice his own career advancement.

Consequently, he will likely earn less income than his spouse.

If he attempts to pursue his goals as competitive snowmobiler, he may be perceived by others as being selfish and irresponsible.

If his spouse commits sexual infidelity and gets caught, he will likely face public ridicule and humiliation and will have to decide for himself whether her adultery constitutes a deal-breaker leading to a highly public divorce or something he can live with in order to help her hold on to political power with the possibility that he himself may run for high office sometime in the future.

If his wife becomes President, people may refer to him as Mr. First Lady.

Palin, like a lot of Paglia-esque women, got where she is on her own merits. Rodham, like a lot of "But it isn't fair" feminists, got where she is because of her husband, who lets her act like she did it herself. Conservative strong women tend to look nicer and actually like men. Lefty feminist women tend toward the bland appearance and blame men.

Dogwood said... I'm still not giving up on the union thing, though, I mean fringe benefits, work rules that prevent work, I think you're overlooking some major advantages here.

We get all we need through legislation. Mandated by good old Uncle Sam. Unions get too corrupt and branch out into all kinds of weird shit like the environment, the rights coffee bean pickers, etc. We get laws passed. lobbying and being the largest special interest group is way cooler than being in a union.

Plus, laws are almost always for ever. Union shit has to be renogotiated.

Total US debt, including state, federal, business, household and financial debt, is about $50 trillion. Given that GDP is about $15 trillion, that's basically nothing; about as scary as making $150,000 and owing a total of $500,000 between your mortgage, student loans and credit cards.

zeek said... Palin, like a lot of Paglia-esque women, got where she is on her own merits. Rodham, like a lot of "But it isn't fair" feminists, got where she is because of her husband, who lets her act like she did it herself. Conservative strong women tend to look nicer and actually like men. Lefty feminist women tend toward the bland appearance and blame men.

Zeek, You just solved the mystery that has plagued this thread. You get the ears and the tail. It is the why Ms. Palin vs why Mrs. Clinton. You explained it succinctly and specifically.

I agree with you guys on the Mr. Mom thing, but then I've always had a bit of an attitude about how "Mom" is supposed to indicate value, when, in fact, anyone can do it simply by getting herself knocked up. I'm more concerned with motherhood as a relationship, which is what it actually indicates. And that goes for fatherhood, too. Having those relationships... either children or with our siblings or our own parents doesn't make us better people... it makes us *richer* people.

Having homeschooled for many years I've met a whole lot of men who are intimately involved, by choice, in the lives of their children. It doesn't seem unusual to me. Or un-manly.

I'm sure Todd Palin will be fine doing his own thing while his wife does her own thing and they raise their family together. I doubt either sees the other as an accessory to their own life, which allows independence and support rather than competition. "Is he below my station? Does she think she's better than me? Is he worthy of me?"

And I wonder how much all of this political stuff has to do with reproduction, or denying it. And I wonder if we'll look back and identify reproduction as the essential societal question. Is abortion about women's autonomy, or is it about viewing reproduction as damaging and children as unwelcome? Is the thing with the poor career ladies unable to find men in New York City (as Ann links to often enough) about denying the essential "mating" of humans to reproduce and rather than looking for some good biology, insisting on good portfolios?

Why do *liberal* women need men who are richer, better looking, and have better careers?

Is the real difference, attitudes about the value of people for the sake of people?

Both Palins obviously *like* humans. Wishing your child would have either waited to have sex or been more careful about birth control doesn't change at all the overall mindset of welcome toward the new life. Because motherhood doesn't make a woman better... children make us *richer*, born in season or out.

I know I'm munging different ideas all together so I'm sure this made no sense... just abstracts floating about in my head trying to come together.

But regardless; the current situation with failing banks, the mortgage crisis, (just how may bailouts can the government afford?) the auto industry tanking, oil costs....the only ones doing well are the oil companies.

In many ways, Bush's second term has been just as bad as Carter's single term. The only difference is that under Carter, interest rates were so high (caused by inflation) that few could afford to become first-time homeowners.

Sorry to hijack this thread, one I'd do well to read and comment in, but I am tired and want to say WE'RE HOME!

Power came back yesterday, we hit the road this morning. Found the cable on, no damage. But I left a small watermelon on the counter in the kitchen. I knew there was something I forgot. That was nasty but it's all cleaned up now.

This is a little what I'm thinking about. Is it liking men, though, or is it liking humans? Including men!

Liking humans... liking men... liking children.

And disliking *men* is just substitution because it's not *men* who have oppressed women... it's biology. Those pesky things called "pregnancy" and "nursing." But actually admitting that babies are the enemy isn't something that's going to fly. So abortion isn't about the oppression of children (even though it is), it's about the oppression of *men* who want to control women's bodies.

But conservative women don't hate *men* because they don't have any hatred of *children* to divert to a more acceptable target.

People always want change on the backs of others. They always have, and they always will. What's new about that? Why do people think there is something new about that?

Why do people think their own iterations of that are so different than those of others? Why do they think their very iterating is different? Why do they think the act of iterating is different? Why do they think the tendency, nay impulse, nay compulsion, to iterate is different? Why do they think they're fundamentally different, at all, at all? Why do they think their branding of human nature is unique or transcendent? Why do they think their branding=brand? Why do they think the nature of human nature is beside the point?

I'd like to add that Pat, my co-blogger at SF, lives in Baton Rouge, LA, and came home from the GOP convention to find a tree through his house. I'm sure he'd appreciate thoughts and prayers leaning on the insurance companies.

Simon, I'm sorry to hear about Pat's misfortune (I meant to respond to that news earlier, but got busy). The main thing I would recommend is that he be tenacious with the insurance company, and also with the contractors involved. If he can check their references, he should, and he shouldn't agree to give up a lot of money up front. Some friends went through two tree contractors before getting one removed from their porch after Katrina. The first one left them high and dry after disappearing over and over to take on other jobs.

"The question is, will Mrs. Clinton fight Ms. Palin to help her former rival, Mr. Obama?"

Only if Nancy Pelosi orders her to. Ms. Pelosi is the real powerhouse in the Democratic Party now. Not Bill, not Barak, not Dean, not Reid; who she has emasculated, and definitely not Hillary.

Ms. Pelosi calls the shots; quietly with an iron fist in a velvet glove. That is the call Hillary is waiting for. A call from the one woman who would not support her during the primary season. The one woman that controls her future and the future of all elected Democrats.

And I suppose this is supposed to be about Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Palin...

But I think that's another reason that Clinton wouldn't do well as Obama's designated Palin attack-dog... certainly no better than he can do himself... (And shouldn't Biden be the one to address the problem of Palin?)

Clinton can't attack Palin on the issue of motherhood (or liking humans!) any more than a man could do. And that's the primary thing that people are reacting so strongly against... that Palin personifies *all* feminist attributes except for *one*.

Lem, that was the part of McCain's speech that I was happiest with, in terms of the nexus between delivery and writing, but it wasn't the most important part. The most important part was that he was candid: we, as a party, screwed up. It wasn't that our ideals were wrong, or that our policies were wrong: it was that the people we sent to Washington on our behalf were the wrong people. The speech would have been a real failure without that admission, I think.

The most important part was that he was candid: we, as a party, screwed up. It wasn't that our ideals were wrong, or that our policies were wrong: it was that the people we sent to Washington on our behalf were the wrong people.

I know, the burden of proof is heavy on McCain.

This is not offered as an excuse but Reagan set the bar very high (were it should be) I dont know if we can still blame 43 though.

I do. I made a solemn vow. Jimmy Carter is the sole reason I will never, and never is a long time, vote Democratic. Remember those almost 19% mortgage rates? Talk about a housing crisis! He demonstrated all that is wrong then and today with the Democratic Party:

CowardiceNo knowlege of EconomicsNo knowlege of international affairs.Disregard for the military and intelligence establishments.High regard for terrorists.No regard for working people.No regard for business.No regard for energy.Plagued by scandals and had a so what attitude.No regard for the rising crime rate.No regard for the massive drug smuggling.No regard for the hostages in Iran.No regard for anything at all.

Jimmy Carter hated people, the people, Americans. He still does.

That man was an abject failure, a coward, and he disgraced this country. He made us the laughing stock of the world. They say we have no respect internationally now? Under Carter we were the clowns of the world.

Lem,She is still the most pwoerful Democrat. If she had come ou for Hillary, Hillary would have been the nominee. She stayed on the sidelines and quietly worked for Obama. Go back and look at what she said. Pelosi runs that party.

“Sarah’s smile is sincere, which I never felt from Hillary, who has anger and resentment in her eyes,” said Ann Schmuecker, a delegate from Mountain Home, Arkansas, where she met the Clintons decades ago."

No worries Lem. As I have said many times I am not in law enforcement. ALthough a big fat Irish looking guy eating a donut is always assumed to be a cop. My screen name is based on a character in Rio Grande one of my favorite John Wayne movies.

And I won't sweat if the Sox repeat. Although I don't think that is going to happen. They lost their mojo when they traded Manny.

I never really had high hopes for the Yankees even though I thought they would do better than they did. It would be too much to ask for to get both the Yankees and the Giants to be WORLD CHAMPIONS.

If she had come ou for Hillary, Hillary would have been the nominee. She stayed on the sidelines and quietly worked for Obama. Go back and look at what she said. Pelosi runs that party.

This is the elephant (the democratic elephant) in the room. Until Palin, Obama has bien able and all too willing to use serepticiously, under the radar, use his status (presumably higher than Hillary) as a force to be reckoned with. Just ask Bill - the first black president and ask Jesse, who's not nuts over Obama.

Nancy is San Francisco, not known for political subdelty. Nancy saw how the wind was blowing and it coincided nicely with their off-the-shelve narrative.

People are attracted to Obama for reasons of their emotional reactions to him. It's not even a *bad* way to make decisions most of the time.

I know that I react very strongly to Sarah Palin. Not that *liking* her is going to over-ride policy issues. Or that wanting, *badly*, to stick the liberal/feminist/conservatives-are-haters nose in it by electing a woman to the vice presidency before they do is going to over ride policy issues.

But it doesn't have to because her faults seem the common sort and her strengths are the ones I want to see.